skip to main content
10.1145/2213556.2213584acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmodConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A dichotomy in the complexity of deletion propagation with functional dependencies

Published:21 May 2012Publication History

ABSTRACT

A classical variant of the view-update problem is deletion propagation, where tuples from the database are deleted in order to realize a desired deletion of a tuple from the view. This operation may cause a (sometimes necessary) side effect---deletion of additional tuples from the view, besides the intentionally deleted one. The goal is to propagate deletion so as to maximize the number of tuples that remain in the view. In this paper, a view is defined by a self-join-free conjunctive query (sjf-CQ) over a schema with functional dependencies. A condition is formulated on the schema and view definition at hand, and the following dichotomy in complexity is established. If the condition is met, then deletion propagation is solvable in polynomial time by an extremely simple algorithm (very similar to the one observed by Buneman et al.). If the condition is violated, then the problem is NP-hard, and it is even hard to realize an approximation ratio that is better than some constant; moreover, deciding whether there is a side-effect-free solution is NP-complete. This result generalizes a recent result by Kimelfeld et al., who ignore functional dependencies. For the class of sjf-CQs, it also generalizes a result by Cong et al., stating that deletion propagation is in polynomial time if keys are preserved by the view.

References

  1. F. Bancilhon and N. Spyratos. Update semantics of relational views. ACM Trans. Database Syst., 6(4):557--575, 1981. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. C. Beeri and M. Y. Vardi. A proof procedure for data dependencies. J. ACM, 31(4):718--741, 1984. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. P. Buneman, S. Khanna, and W. C. Tan. On propagation of deletions and annotations through views. In PODS, pages 150--158, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. G. Cong, W. Fan, and F. Geerts. Annotation propagation revisited for key preserving views. In CIKM, pages 632--641, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. G. Cong, W. Fan, F. Geerts, J. Li, and J. Luo. On the complexity of view update analysis and its application to annotation propagation. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., 24(3):506--519, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. S. S. Cosmadakis and C. H. Papadimitriou. Updates of relational views. J. ACM, 31(4):742--760, 1984. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Y. Cui and J. Widom. Run-time translation of view tuple deletions using data lineage. Technical report, Stanford University, 2001. http://dbpubs.stanford.edu:8090/pub/2001-24.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. N. N. Dalvi, K. Schnaitter, and D. Suciu. Computing query probability with incidence algebras. In PODS, pages 203--214, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. N. N. Dalvi and D. Suciu. Efficient query evaluation on probabilistic databases. VLDB J., 16(4):523--544, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. U. Dayal and P. A. Bernstein. On the correct translation of update operations on relational views. ACM Trans. Database Syst., 7(3):381--416, 1982. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. R. Fagin, J. D. Ullman, and M. Y. Vardi. On the semantics of updates in databases. In PODS, pages 352--365. ACM, 1983. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. A. M. Keller. Algorithms for translating view updates to database updates for views involving selections, projections, and joins. In PODS, pages 154--163. ACM, 1985. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. B. Kimelfeld. A dichotomy in the complexity of deletion propagation with functional dependencies (extended version). Accessible from the author's home page, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. B. Kimelfeld, J. Vondrák, and R. Williams. Maximizing conjunctive views in deletion propagation. In PODS, pages 187--198, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. P. G. Kolaitis and E. Pema. A dichotomy in the complexity of consistent query answering for queries with two atoms. In press, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. D. Maslowski and J. Wijsen. On counting database repairs. In LID, pages 15--22, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. A. Meliou, W. Gatterbauer, J. Y. Halpern, C. Koch, K. F. Moore, and D. Suciu. Causality in databases. IEEE Data Eng. Bull., 33(3):59--67, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. A. Meliou, W. Gatterbauer, K. F. Moore, and D. Suciu. The complexity of causality and responsibility for query answers and non-answers. PVLDB, 4(1):34--45, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. A dichotomy in the complexity of deletion propagation with functional dependencies

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          PODS '12: Proceedings of the 31st ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGAI symposium on Principles of Database Systems
          May 2012
          332 pages
          ISBN:9781450312486
          DOI:10.1145/2213556

          Copyright © 2012 ACM

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 21 May 2012

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate476of1,835submissions,26%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader
        About Cookies On This Site

        We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

        Learn more

        Got it!